Slashdot Mirror
Yankee Group Survey Says Windows, Linux TCO Equal
prostoalex writes "A new survey by Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio shows Windows and Linux are viewed as equal by U.S. businesses. In the eternal OS wars, '88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux.' Companies were also asked to rank the operating systems on security. On a scale of 1 to 10 'companies rated Microsoft's security at 7.6, double the rating in a similar survey conducted last year. Linux's rating was mostly the same at 8.3.' Conclusion? 'DiDio said that most companies -- whether large or small -- rarely take the huge step of replacing one operating system with another. Instead, they usually add a mix of Windows and Linux server software to expand functionality.' Microsoft used last year's Yankee Group survey results in their Get the facts campaign."
The survey needs to take into account what OS the respondents are currently using, that's the single most important factor.
You don't use an OS that you don't like, and if that's not true (e.g. you're forced to use a pre-installed OS), then you probably wouldn't know any better alternative if you've been using only one OS.
If a Linux-only user said Windows is better, or vice versa, what does that mean? How does he come to this conclusion? The most credible answers should be from Multi-OS users.
I'm not saying this study is inaccurate, but there are simly too many things to consider, and this may well lead to a simple conclusion - software choice is more on personal preference than anything else.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
'88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux.' Companies were also asked to rank the operating systems on security. On a scale of 1 to 10 'companies rated Microsoft's security at 7.6, double the rating in a similar survey conducted last year. Linux's rating was mostly the same at 8.3.'
Notice, it doesn't say security professionals for security, it doesn't say economists for TCO, it says companies. I'm sorry, but the first thing to enter my mind in this situation is a "Pointy Haired Boss" filling these things out. It's basically an opinion survey, pointless in anything but spreading FUD.
"Instead, they usually add a mix of Windows and Linux server software to expand functionality."
Thus, they have the ability to directly compare between both. If they find Linux to be infinitely better, they would switch. Different tasks -> different tools, however, so they use both.
webpage
DiDio is a total shill for Microsoft. I don't know why /. dotes on her every word. She isn't an unbiased source, y'know.
The non-biased information all says the obvious: Linux has TCO ownage on Windows. That said, I'd like to see a TCO study where Linux and Windows are compared to MacOS X, especially now that Apple has a relatively cheap model that could be a great replacement for enterprise desktops.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Well I'm not surprised because it sounds like they are asking employers which they think is better. And lets face it, when it comes to playing video games Windows pretty much has it in the bag. Well at least thats what my employer uses Windows for.
From the Article: "Server operating systems are largely commoditized," DiDio said, adding that many companies were not tracking their operating costs closely enough to base their decisions on total cost of ownership, or TCO, the main cost metric when comparing Linux and Windows.
So, they ask the bosses "What is the TCO for Windows-based servers?"
"I don't know"
Then, they ask the bosses "What is the TCO for Linux-based servers?"
"I don't know"
Since "I don't know" equals "I don't know", the conclusion is that the operating systems have equal TCOs, at least in the eyes of the business managers.
Does she have credibility? About as much as Ken Brown ("A swedish student named Linux Torvald copied Linus from Minux which his professor Tannenbaum copied from Unix"), Rob PretEnderle (the one with the Ferrari Notebook that makes Vroom Vroom noises) and Maureen O' Gara (Linux is completely stolen from SCO) together. Minus infinity + Minus infinity + Minus infinity = Minus Infinity.
If your intent is to measure their PERCEPTION, this is exactly what you need to do.
Instead of taking it as FUD and discarding it, consider it as a TODO list to increase your favorite OS acceptance (whatever that may be).
I'm just tired of DiDio. Isn't she the one who said just last year, that it will take Linux close to a decade to even be percived to be competitive to Windows? I better become an analyst to. How do I start? And there is Gartner too spewing "facts" about Linux all the time...
We didn't always think of her as a 'whatever'. She had to work hard to earn her reputation.
Some readers may not be familiar with her work since SCO has pretty much fallen off the pages of Slashdot. Those of us who frequent www.Groklaw.net are quite familiar with her. Her 'reportage' on the SCO story has been so slanted and devoid of reality that some of us wonder if she's from the same planet we are. To put this in context: Groklaw is Pamela Jones' blog. Pamela will delete a post if she thinks the poster was even thinking rude thoughts. Pamela is really really polite. Pamela was once reduced to calling this lady Didiot. You really have to be something to get Pamela that riled!
I don't see how this survey can be considered FUD. They aren't saying anything either is better or worse than the other. They simply relay feelings of their respondants.
The whole point of this of course isn't to compare the platforms or make a suggestion on which is better, it just conveys the feelings of their respondants.
Should this be used as a basis for a decision for what to use? Of course not!!! Is this an interesting insight into the current thinking of corporate IT departments? Yes.
It isn't FUD and isn't pointless, but if you take any of this as FACT, thats your mistake. This is simply an interesting look at current thinking. If this thinking is correct or not isn't the point. Its like saying a poll finding 80% of people are against the war in Iraq is FUD. That poll wouldn't wouldn't mean we should or shouldn't be there (as the respondants may not really be qualified to know), it would just give an interesting view of what people are thinking.
Read this article as such.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
In terms of security, Yankee Group's survey showed a sharp rise in companies' assessment of Microsoft's security level, bringing it closer to perceived security level of Linux.
May be more accurately phrased:
In terms of security, Yankee Group's survey showed a sharp rise in companies' perception of Microsoft's security level, bringing it closer to the assessed security level of Linux.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Laura Didio is a paid shill, who writes whatever will give her the most hits, regardless of factual content. I've read tabloids with a better grasp of the truth than her.
./ already know she's a shill, they won't care. And the PHBs reading the article via MS's links won't get to read your debunking. Why waste your time on her?
According to the article, she's now claiming to have done yet another study which no doubt will get debunked within a couple hours but still cited by microsoft (sans the debunking) months later.
So, a simple question for everyone? Why bother debunking it? Anybody with more than half a brain already knows Didio is a paid liar, so she's not going to care if you drive a truck through her arguments. The other people on
This is the same argument as the old saw about how simply because Windows is the dominant consumer operating system it is the target of more malware. It ignores the fact that operating systems are not all built in the same fashion. For example, what about pre-OS X versions of the Macintosh? What about OpenBSD or Bastille Linux?
These discussions about OS security tend to ignore the fact that the *NIX distro or Windows version you're using can significantly impact security. Just as all OSes are not the same in terms of usability, I think it's a gross simplification to say that they're pretty much equal in security.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...the study says 88% said windows was equal or better - but how many said it was better versus equal?
A quick guess -
1% preferred Windows, rather than an office in the middle of the building with no natural light.
87% didn't really understand the question or were afraid to show they didn't know, and said they were equal.
12% said Linux was better.
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/surveys/040213_Lin ux.htm
0 85956154
oh, and btw - it was sent out to readers of the w2k news magazine:
http://www.w2knews.com/index.cfm?id=463
So, the sample of survey respondents was about as controlled as a george bush or saddam hussein political ralley.
More at: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040324
I did read one stat one where which said somrhthing like 66% of linux workstations use a cracked copy of windows.
Non-sequitur.
I find windows easy to use and install, call me a point a click nub, but if i can do alot without having to remember commands, it works in my favor.
Appeal to tradition.
What happens when say, a linux company starts comming as big as Microsoft, are they being as bad
Appeal to fear.
and lets be honest, alot of windows problems are C++ buffer over runs which as it fault of the languge, not the programming,
False premise.
also being the most widly used OS its bound to have more holes discoverd as more people (like 12 year olds now can get on net and learn how to crack programs and find security holes) are doing it on windows systems.
Red herring.
Also another side and my second closing (lol) is that Microsoft does alot of good. Gates give the most to charity (i think he gives the most in the world),
Appeal to wealth and honor by association.
there traninig scheme is good with alot of people doing, I for 1 am starting my MCSE in september, and have a big reasearch department,
Untenable appeal to authority.
look a mobile computing, wireless, the whole wireless home idear with windows media centre.
Meaningless statement.
I wonder how much of the advanced we have today, would be here without MS.
Historian's fallacy and/or hindsight.
Got any more fallacious thinking?
Seriously, this is so void of legible response that it makes it painful to read.
Your conceptions are clearly misguided on the basis that you seem to not know what you are talking about.
This is obviously not a jab at you personally or professionally. I'm sure you are extremely qualified and good at whatever it is that you do.
However, you are clearly lost. Bill Gates personal life and his business acumen and behavior are two completely different things. Praising the man for his general charity doesn't expound to his or the companies he works for behavior in the computing industry. Please learn to seperate the two. That said you would do yourself good to try other operating systems.
Hosting via Windows is russian roulette. I say this because i've done the real life test myself. I'm no windows professional. Infact, in Dec of 1994 I stopped using windows when an OS/2 warp disk of mine died and an IBM engineer at the time gave me a copy of linux. There are so many black magic items in Windows that it would take an increasing amount of time for me to learn them all. Windows isn't easy to learn, it's easy to click alot of buttons and try to get it working but that doesn't enable me to understand what is going on or what is happening with my computer.
This has lead me to believe that windows administrators simply don't care about their systems enough to know how they work. They just want a patch or a quick fix or to press a couple of buttons and reboot. I've even extended myself to try and find a good windows administrator to learn from. I hate windows, but I'm clearly trying to understand where the low cost TCO and ease of use come from. If anyone is willing to help with this please feel free to contact me.
The documentation via Microsoft is often incorrect or not detailed. In most cases the behavior exhibited isn't what the documentation is really for and/or there are completely missing chunks of steps via documentation. An example of this would be smartcards. In Unix land, these problems are mitigated by having the source. Also, man pages usually are exacting, so my questions are answered. This isn't available via windows.
I switched over a heavily trafficed site to Windows based on contract purposes and it crashed, repeatedly. Why? I'm still amiss as to why. There was simply no way to fix this. Microsoft said they would look into this and I'm not sure if they ever did. My caring well ran dry way before that. I took the same site and put it on a Solaris box, that was in 2001. I haven't touched it since. It's still running from the time I powered it on, this is about 3 years and 9 months later.
So my experience with Microsoft has been the complete opposite. I'm not sure they've made a positive difference in the computing industry. Even with the low cost of hardware which can be traced back to hardware manufacturers and competition. Microsoft hasn't provided software that changes people lives or allows for general productivity in the work place. Computers are to be aids, tools to real life work. Has Microsoft changed my life or allowed me to be productive? To date, no, they've allowed me to be less productive. To get less work done. I spend more time fiddling with windows machines than trying to work on new interesting things. It annoys me.
In comparison, if I put a unix box up to do something. I walk away, and usually I don't come back. I go on to other things.
Unix/Linux/Open Source allows me to learn to enable productivity. It allows me to get my job done and go home and enjoy other things.
Other than SCO and Darl McBride, I think DiDio is probably held in the lowest possible esteem over on Groklaw. They quote her a lot, and she seems to get it wrong nearly every time. The opinions that I have read by her are consistently pro-SCO, pro-Microsoft, and anti-open source, to the point that I don't think she can be considered an even remotely reliable source.
So it's particularly interesting that "TCO is equal" is the best she could come up with. If that's the best they can manage, it's a huge win for Open Source. When TCO is equal, why on earth would you pick the software that costs more up front?
The claim must be that Linux costs more to run, since it's free to install. That was the exact method that Microsoft used for ages to get ahead in the market... it was cheaper up front but cost more to run. That can actually be a very smart business decision, since presumably you'll have more money later than you do now, particuarly if your business is just getting off the ground. (That's part of why leases do so well.)
Of course, we all know that Linux is probably cheaper to maintain once you have the skills to do so, possibly by an order of magnitude, due to the absolute control you have over the system and the enormous power of the built-in scripting languages.
But even if you grant that it's more expensive to run, this study shows that Linux is a good choice for many businesses, particularly small ones, or companies growing very quickly without a lot of capital to do it.
Price isn't the only aspect of the idea of licensing software. I think many people don't realize how easy it is to get hardware, and how fluid the hardware situation can be.
Say you have some people doing a data entry job. Say that for whatever reason, you have a sudden excess of data that needs to be entered. With a Linux set up, you could take an old computer, put together a terminal, and have someone enter data for a day, and then you can throw that computer back in a closet. With Windows, you would need to buy a seperate license for that computer, even if you were using it for a day. Similiar situations exist all over, from small jobs like this, to someone who might have a temporary spike in web traffic for a week, and needs another server to cover it. Dealing with the technicalities of getting a license for these things would be somewhere between a nuisance, and a threat (if you do it wrong).
Many people, especially in management, wouldn't realize this is a problem, because they grew up in an era when your computer hardware was too heavy and rare to move. Now, when you could get a P-266 off of a pile, or at a garage sale, and turn it into a backup webserver in one hour, the entire idea of licensing specific computers makes less sense.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
exactly, why does slashdot even give didiot the time of day any more - she's 'proven' her 'independence' so many times in the past year or so with the sco/linux debacle, let alone the fud that she spouts consistently.
it's obvious she's a microsoft employee, and the yankee group have destroyed any credibility they 'might' have had by continuing to employ her.
non-story, complete fud
Gekido's Lair
Windows never had Mandatory Access Controls. And never had. NT didn't have it.
Unix and Windows use what is called 'Descresionary Access Controls', or DAC.
What your talking about is, probably, ACL. Access Control Lists.
ACLS are normal, Windows has ACLs so does Linux.
What you mean are extended ACLs. Windows NT had support for Extended Access Control Lists. Which goes beyond the model created for Unix which is:
user, group, everybody else (world)...
read, write, execute.
EACLs are NOT MANDATORY ACCESS CONTROLS. Mandatory access controls are something else completely and is not based on your username or what groups your user belongs to. Windows simulates certain role based authentaction, but it's not realy MAC.
MAC in SELinux are also RBAC. It allows a framework to be developed so that you can have a truly 'trusted linux' setup and is used in addition to the normal DAC that is used in Windows and Linux already.
NT does not, nor ever had, MAC.
You obviously do not know what Mandatory Access Controls are.
Sorry, you're the one who doesn't know what they are. Windows does not have them, and neither did VMS. MACs are not ACLs (which VMS had, NT has and Linux and Unixes now have, but only acquired fairly recently and don't much use).
MACs are a tool for setting up other access restrictions, based on how you access the system (console, SSH, HTTP, etc.) and are orthogonal to user identity-based access controls. If I configure the system to disallow anyone who logged in via SSH from touching any system or user files, I could give you my root password and you couldn't do any damage. More importantly, I could rest easy about remote root exploits in OpenSSH, or any sort of privilege escalation attack. Even if you manage to fool the OS into thinking you are a different user, you're not going to be able to fool it about how you're talking to it.
I repeat: Windows does not have Mandatory Access Controls.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.